Scottish Executive

Agriculture

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports any current proposals to cap the level of subsidy granted to any single farming unit.

Ross Finnie: No. The Executive does not support arrangements which discriminate between producers on the basis of scale of subsidy payments or scale of operation more generally.

Caledonian MacBrayne

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it had any involvement in the appointment of Caledonian MacBrayne’s European Funding Manager; whether any assessment was made of potential conflicts of interest and, if so, whether any conflicts of interest were identified.

Lewis Macdonald: The role of Scottish ministers in relation to Caledonian MacBrayne appointments is confined to Directors. The decision to appoint a State Aids Manager was taken by the company. There was no need for consultation with the Executive and none took place.

Children and Young People

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it has taken, or will take, to ensure that one national insurance policy is obtained in order to provide cover for children participating in sport, recreational physical exercise and outdoor activity, including school excursions and foreign holidays, and whether the establishment of such a policy could effect savings for local authorities who are presently responsible for ensuring that such insurance cover exists.

Nicol Stephen: Local authorities have public liability insurance cover for the extent of their own legal liability across all the services, including education, for which they are responsible. Consideration of insurance cover beyond that would be a matter for individual local authorities or for other parties involved in the provision of the activities referred to.

Children and Young People

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what strategy it has to enable children to visit rural areas of Scotland and participate in outdoor pursuits.

Nicol Stephen: Children already have a range of opportunities, including through schools and voluntary organisations, to visit rural areas of Scotland and participate in outdoor pursuits.

Children and Young People

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many schoolchildren have attended a course at an outdoor centre (a) in and (b) outwith Scotland in each year since 1997.

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many local authorities have owned or operated outdoor centres for the benefit of schoolchildren in their areas in each year since 1997.

Nicol Stephen: The information requested is not held centrally.

Children and Young People

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what funds or assistance it provides to enable children to visit outdoor centres in rural areas of Scotland.

Nicol Stephen: The Scottish Executive provides general funding to local authorities and grants to voluntary organisations that assist them to facilitate such visits. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund supports an activities programme as part of the PE and Sport initiative announced in March 2002. Some of the £35 million available under this programme will be used by local authorities to allow children to attend outdoor centres.

Community Safety

Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what powers the neighbourhood wardens announced in its press release SESJ055/2002 will have.

Ms Margaret Curran: Neighbourhood wardens in Scotland will have no powers beyond that of the ordinary citizen. The police must remain the only body with powers to intervene in situations without consent. Other persons may only intervene with consent or under whatever arrangement lies between the employer of the warden/patrol and the citizen.

Education

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, with regard to The Scotsman article of 23 August 2002, what investigation it is undertaking into the decline in the pass rate for mathematics examinations in the Higher Still programme and whether any such investigation includes consideration of and comparison with the pass rate for mathematics in the SCE Higher grade exam and syllabus format.

Nicol Stephen: I refer the member to the answer given to question S1W-29232 on 26 September 2002. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Enterprise

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether any feasibility studies have been carried out regarding the e-tail venture in relation to the joint proposal by Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire, William Bowden Developments Ltd and Corus to develop the former steelworks site at Ravenscraig.

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the decision to proceed with the proposed e-tail venture at the former steelworks site at Ravenscraig is based on any research evidence of success from other comparative sites internationally.

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what data is available to indicate that the proposed e-tail venture at the former steelworks site at Ravenscraig would be a success.

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what information is available on what (a) economic and (b) social impact the proposed e-tail venture at the former steel works site at Ravenscraig would have in and on the Clydesdale area.

Iain Gray: This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise.

Enterprise

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans are in place to support the rural economy in the Clydesdale area in relation to competition from the proposed e-tail venture at the former steelworks site at Ravenscraig.

Iain Gray: Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire is taking action in line with the direction and priorities set out in the Executive’s A Smart, Successful Scotland . This sets out the foundation for sustained improvement in economic performance in Scotland. It focuses on three key challenges for raising productivity:

  Growing businesses

  Global connections

  Learning and skills

  Provision of information on programmes and projects is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise.

Fisheries

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many submissions there were to its consultation on technical conservation measures for the scallop industry; when and where the submissions were made publicly available, and what percentage of them supported the introduction of such measures.

Ross Finnie: Twenty-six responses were received to the consultation on technical measures for scallops. All responses except those marked as confidential were made available in the Scottish Executive Library in early October 2002.

  Most of the respondents broadly supported the Executive’s proposals, although opinions obviously varied on the many points of detail included in the consultation paper.

Fisheries

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps have been taken to ensure that France, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Spain do not exercise excessive influence during the current negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy.

Ross Finnie: Ministerial and official bilaterals are taking place with the Danish Presidency, the European Commission, and various member states as we move towards this year’s decisions on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, the cod and hake recovery plan, and next year’s quotas. I am involved in this series of meetings, as are my officials. Our clear aim is to establish common positions and negotiating stances in support of our own aims and objectives.

Fisheries

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether any studies have been carried out into the economic impact of its proposed technical conservation measures for the scallop fishing industry and, if so, what the results of any such studies were.

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has commissioned any studies into the impact on the scallop industry and the rural economy of the Executive’s scallop technical conservation measures and any other proposals on scallop fishing and, if so, when the results were or will be published.

Ross Finnie: A draft Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared. It will be published when the SI is laid before parliament, in accordance with normal practice.

Fisheries

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has adopted any position on any proposals for effort limitation measures such as days at sea schemes as part of the current negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy.

Ross Finnie: When we were discussing multi-annual management plans at the September Council, we said that effort control should be one of the instruments available to fisheries managers under a reformed Common Fisheries Policy. When we were discussing the European Commission’s draft Cod and Hake Recovery Plan at the October Council, we said that effort control may need to be used alongside other measures necessary to secure the recovery of the cod stocks.

  The recent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is clear on the need for urgent and effective measures to ensure sustainable Scottish fisheries. Closure of the mixed demersal fisheries would be disastrous. So we need to identify and promote credible, defensible and effective alternatives. Discussions are under way with the industry to that end. We cannot rule out effort controls as one ingredient in any solution.

Marine Environment

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress the Scottish Law Commission is making in preparing its report on the law of the foreshore and seabed and when the report will be published.

Ross Finnie: The Scottish Law Commission’s Review of the Law of the Foreshore and Seabed was due to be completed by December 2002 and the majority of the commission's work is on target to meet that date, but part of the review covers access to the foreshore, upon which Part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will have an impact. I have agreed that the commission can delay the publication of their report until early in 2003 to allow them to take account of any further changes made to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill during its passage through the Scottish Parliament.

Ministerial Correspondence

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what its performance in answering ministerial correspondence was in the first quarter of 2002.

Patricia Ferguson: In the answer given to question S1W-24583 on 28 March 2002, I undertook to continue to report quarterly on the numbers of letters received by ministers and our performance in answering them. In the quarter April to June 2002, 3,898 letters were received for ministerial reply of which 72% received a reply within 17 working days, and 87% received a reply within 25 working days. This maintains the performance of   the first quarter of 2002 when 72% of letters received a reply within 17 working days and 88% received a reply within 25 working days.

New Deal

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-13491 by Ms Wendy Alexander on 23 March 2001, how many people have now participated in the New Deal for Young People more than once since the scheme’s inception, broken down by unit of delivery.

Iain Gray: Employment policy is reserved to the UK Government which takes the lead on funding and delivery of the New Deal. In Scotland it does this in partnership with the Scottish Executive and contributing Scottish organisations.

  The following table details the number of people who have participated in the New Deal for Young People more than once since its inception, broken down by unit of delivery to the end of March 2002:

  


Tayside 
  

1,436 
  



Ayrshire 
  

1,696 
  



Borders 
  

230 
  



Dumfries and Galloway 
  

460 
  



Dunbarton 
  

692 
  



Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian 
  

963 
  



Fife 
  

1,336 
  



Forth Valley 
  

850 
  



Glasgow 
  

2,942 
  



Grampian 
  

453 
  



Moray, Strathspey and Badenoch 
  

98 
  



Lanarkshire 
  

2,188 
  



Renfrewshire 
  

807 
  



West Lothian 
  

375 
  



Argyll and the Islands 
  

128 
  



Caithness and Sutherland 
  

102 
  



Inverness and Nairn 
  

118 
  



Lochaber 
  

17 
  



Eilean Siar 
  

55 
  



Orkney 
  

24 
  



Ross and Cromarty 
  

109 
  



Shetland 
  

18 
  



Skye and Lochalsh 
  

19 
  



Scotland 
  

15,116

New Deal

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-18897 by Ms Wendy Alexander on 2 November 2001, how many people have enrolled in the (a) employment, (b) full-time education and training, (c) voluntary sector and (d) environmental task force options of the New Deal for Young People since the scheme’s inception, broken down by unit of delivery.

Iain Gray: Employment policy is reserved to the UK Government which takes the lead on funding and delivery of the New Deal. In Scotland it does this in partnership with the Scottish Executive and contributing Scottish organisations.

  The following table details the figures requested by unit of delivery to the end of March 2002:

  

 

Option 
  



Subsidised Employment 
  

FTET 
  

Voluntary Sector 
  

ETF 
  



Tayside 
  

1,112 
  

1,018 
  

856 
  

1,250 
  



Ayrshire 
  

1,041 
  

1,238 
  

1,107 
  

874 
  



Borders 
  

193 
  

139 
  

222 
  

202 
  



Dumfries and Galloway 
  

365 
  

523 
  

282 
  

141 
  



Dunbarton 
  

323 
  

698 
  

271 
  

523 
  



Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian 
  

499 
  

728 
  

611 
  

739 
  



Fife 
  

634 
  

1,549 
  

555 
  

1,152 
  



Forth Valley 
  

673 
  

885 
  

453 
  

625 
  



Glasgow 
  

1,247 
  

3,440 
  

1,752 
  

1,875 
  



Grampian 
  

254 
  

423 
  

331 
  

178 
  



Moray, Strathspey and Badenoch 
  

119 
  

58 
  

109 
  

120 
  



Lanarkshire 
  

1,327 
  

2,067 
  

1,142 
  

1,893 
  



Renfrewshire 
  

336 
  

770 
  

750 
  

642 
  



West Lothian 
  

150 
  

236 
  

330 
  

281 
  



Argyll and the Islands 
  

138 
  

98 
  

73 
  

206 
  



Caithness and Sutherland 
  

81 
  

136 
  

28 
  

104 
  



Inverness and Nairn 
  

95 
  

170 
  

72 
  

91 
  



Lochaber 
  

8 
  

9 
  

10 
  

9 
  



Eilean Siar 
  

113 
  

66 
  

28 
  

64 
  



Orkney 
  

41 
  

12 
  

17 
  

31 
  



Ross and Cromarty 
  

87 
  

161 
  

49 
  

68 
  



Shetland 
  

19 
  

14 
  

3 
  

3 
  



Skye and Lochalsh 
  

23 
  

13 
  

3 
  

4 
  



Scotland 
  

8,878 
  

14,451 
  

9,054 
  

11,075

New Deal

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many people have (a) entered the New Deal for Young People, (b) returned to claiming benefits after completing the programme and (c) moved into (i) subsidised and (ii) unsubsidised employment since the scheme’s inception, (1) in total and (2) broken down by unit of delivery.

Iain Gray: Employment policy is reserved to the UK Government which takes the lead on funding and delivery of the New Deal. In Scotland it does this in partnership with the Scottish Executive and contributing Scottish organisations.

  The following table details the figures requested by unit of delivery to the end of March 2002:

New Deal

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-18898 by Ms Wendy Alexander on 23 November 2001, how much has been spent on the New Deal for Young People in Scotland in each year since the scheme’s inception.

Iain Gray: Employment policy is reserved to the UK Government which takes the lead on funding and delivery of the New Deal. In Scotland it does this in partnership with the Scottish Executive and contributing Scottish organisations.

  The total spend on New Deal for Young people up to March 2002 was £133 million.

  The following table details how much has been spent on New Deal for Young People in each year since the scheme’s inception:

  


Year 
  

£000 
  



1997-98 
  

1,266 
  



1998-99 
  

17,330 
  



1999-2000 
  

32,488 
  



2000-01 
  

38,846 
  



April 01 - March 02 
  

42,752* 
  



Total 
  

132,682 
  



  Note:

  *Latest forecast. Actual figures are not yet available.

New Deal

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-18895 by Ms Wendy Alexander on 2 November 2001, whether information is now collected on the number and percentage of companies that have taken on young people under the employment option of the New Deal for Young People since the scheme’s inception; if so, whether it will give this information, and how many employers have now signed up for the New Deal.

Iain Gray: Employment policy is reserved to the UK Government which takes the lead on funding and delivery of the New Deal. In Scotland it does this in partnership with the Scottish Executive and contributing Scottish organisations.

  I refer the member to the answer given to question S1W-18895. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

  The number of Employer Agreements signed up to the end of August 2002 in Scotland are 15,647 which is 15.8% of the GB figure. There are no plans to collect other data.

School Curriculum

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the current standard grade history syllabus covers the issue of the Scottish campaign for women’s rights, education and suffrage; if so, whether the issue is covered in a solely Scottish context or is covered as part of the consideration of the campaign in other parts of the UK, and, if it is not covered in the syllabus, what the reasons are for this position.

Nicol Stephen: Both standard grade and higher courses offer opportunities to study women’s rights, education and suffrage. Schools determine the balance of attention between Scottish aspects of the suffrage movement and examples from elsewhere in the UK. The women’s suffrage movement is an examinable issue in the Standard Grade examinations.

Substance Misuse

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how much money has been allocated to educational projects aimed at reducing the misuse of (a) drugs, (b) alcohol and (c) tobacco in the current financial year.

Dr Richard Simpson: A range of educational activity aimed at reducing the misuse of drugs, alcohol and tobacco is funded by local authorities and other bodies, full details of which are not held centrally.

  The Health Education Board for Scotland’s alcohol and smoking specific budgets for this financial year are £335,000 and £1.311 million respectively. The Executive is also providing £104,000 in this year to support the Drinkwise responsible drinking campaign. A Policy Unit Review of Expenditure on Tackling Drug Misuse in 1999 concluded that 16% of the total estimated annual drugs expenditure by public sector bodies of £141.5 million (around £22.64 million) was allocated to prevention/education work. A copy of the Policy Unit Review is available at:

  http://www.drugmisuse.isdscotland.org/publications/abstracts/PUDrugExpenRev.htm.

  In addition, over the three years 2001-02 to 2003-04, the Executive has made extra funding of around £130 million available for tackling drug misuse. Of the £46 million that will be spent in the current financial year, we estimate that about £9.25 million will be used for drugs prevention or education activity. This is made up of £1 million allocated for drug education in schools to help in meeting national standards; £6 million made available to local authorities through the Changing Children’s Services Fund for projects and initiatives in the areas of prevention and treatment facilities for under 16s; £1.5 million allocated to Scotland Against Drugs for its drugs prevention and education work, and £750,000 to Lloyds TSB Foundation for projects aimed at vulnerable children and young people, some of which include an educational element.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what the legislative and regulatory requirements are in order to implement the monitoring regime in respect of the operational efficiency of the proposed water treatment plant at Milngavie.

Ross Finnie: The legislative requirements regarding drinking water quality at the proposed water treatment plant at Milngavie shall be the same as those applied elsewhere in the public water supply system. There is a body of relevant legislation and a list has been deposited with the Parliament’s Reference Centre. Key legislation includes:

  The Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002

  The Cryptosporidium (Scottish Water) Directions 2002

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 2001

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001

  The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994

  The Water (Scotland) Act 1980.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what the maximum readings of levels of cryptosporidia were in respect of the incidents in (a) Aberdeen, (b) Thurso and (c) one of the aqueducts from Loch Katrine, referred to in paper P1/02 to the public board meeting of Scottish Water on 19 June 2002.

Ross Finnie: Scottish Water is responsible for monitoring the level of cryptosporidium in public drinking water supplies at risk from the parasite. The Cryptosporidium Directions require any detection of the parasite to be reported to the Drinking Water Quality Unit at the Executive. The maximum level of cryptosporidium reported in the Aberdeen water supply, during the outbreak that occurred between January and March 2002, was 0.022 oocysts per 10 litres. No cryptosporidium has been reported in the Thurso water supply this year.

  The maximum level of cryptosporidium reported in the old aqueduct, referred to in Scottish Water’s Board papers of 19 June, is 11.21 oocysts per 10 litres. This was reported during the incident in Glasgow in August 2002. The old aqueduct carries Loch Katrine water to Mugdock reservoir, which in turn supplies the Milngavie works. The maximum level of cryptosporidium reported in the Glasgow supply during the incident was 0.353 oocysts per 10 litres.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what risk analysis has been undertaken of potential contamination sources in the Loch Katrine catchment.

Ross Finnie: Two studies have been commissioned by Scottish Water:

  1. Loch Katrine Cryptosporidium Risk Assessment, Scottish Agricultural College, April 2001

  2. Katrine Old and New Aqueducts Water Quality Risk Assessment, Babtie Group, September 2002.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what works recommended by the Scottish Agricultural College in its risk assessment study of the Loch Katrine catchment and the aqueducts running from Loch Katrine to the treatment works at Milngavie have been completed.

Ross Finnie: The risk assessment study carried out by the Scottish Agricultural College was commissioned by Scottish Water and the completion of works recommended by the study is a matter for Scottish Water.

  Scottish Water has advised that the following recommendations have been actioned:

  Erection of fencing around the water margin to prevent grazing sheep having direct contact with reservoir.

  Diversion of critical minor watercourses intercepted by the aqueducts. This work is in design development and will start on site in the near future.

  Further discussions are also taking place with landowners/occupiers to determine the likely cost of removing grazing animals from direct catchment land not under the ownership of Scottish Water.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether any independent experts support the view that the treatment process proposed in the Katrine Water Project will meet relevant legislative and regulatory requirements in relation to cryptosporidium.

Ross Finnie: Scottish Water commissioned the Water Research Centre (WRc) to undertake an independent expert review of the treatment process proposed for the Katrine Water Project. WRc concluded that the proposed process would meet the relevant legislative and regulatory requirements including those for cryptosporidium.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the removal efficiency of the proposed treatment process in the Katrine Water Project is adequate, given the risk of contamination within the Loch Katrine catchment.

Ross Finnie: The selection of an appropriate treatment process is a matter for Scottish Water. However, Scottish Water has advised that cryptosporidium challenge trials were undertaken on the pilot plant used to test the treatment process proposed for the Katrine Water Project. These trials concluded that the proposed process is adequate for Loch Katrine water. As indicated in the answer given to question S1W-30442, the proposed treatment process has also been subjected to an independent expert review. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will list all actions undertaken within the Loch Katrine catchment to improve the quality of raw water that would be delivered to the new Milngavie water treatment plant.

Ross Finnie: To date, Scottish Water has carried out a number of actions related to raw water quality within the Loch Katrine complex; over and above its normal operating and maintenance regime. In April 2001, the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) was commissioned to carry out a cryptosporidium risk assessment and in September 2002, the Babtie Group was commissioned to carry out further risk assessment work along the full length of the aqueducts. Detailed physical inspections of parts of the old and the new aqueduct were also carried out in September 2002.

  Scottish Water has also undertaken an internal review of the cryptosporidium incidents that occurred in both Glasgow and Edinburgh in August 2002. This was carried out under the independent chairmanship of Professor Cluckie.

  Details of the work carried out by Scottish Water in response to the recommendations contained in the SAC report are contained in the answer given to question S1W-30441 today. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what the monitored cryptosporidium levels in (a) raw and (b) treated water were at the (i) Balmore and (ii) Blairlinnans water treatment plants in August 2002.

Ross Finnie: The information requested is given in Cryptosporidium Sampling Results for August 2002 , a copy of which has been placed in the Parliament’s Reference Centre (Bib. number 24867).

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-26591 by Ross Finnie on 24 June 2002, whether it will name the specific methodology used by Scottish Water to measure cryptosporidium in (a) raw water from Loch Katrine and (b) treated water from the new Milngavie water treatment plant.

Ross Finnie: I refer the member to the answer given to question S1W-29505 on 2 October 2002. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Water Safety

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what actions it (a) has undertaken and (b) plans to undertake in the Loch Katrine catchment to provide a barrier against contamination of the water supply by cryptosporidium.

Ross Finnie: The provision of a barrier to minimise the risk of cryptosporidium entering the Glasgow water supply from Loch Katrine is a matter for Scottish Water. The Katrine Water Project being progressed by Scottish Water proposes the introduction of a process consisting of chemical coagulation followed by rapid gravity filtration. Trials have been carried out on site and the proposed process has been shown to perform successfully when judged against current legislative standards and industry best practise.

  The current undertaking given by Scottish Water to Scottish ministers requires Scottish Water to complete the Katrine Water Project by December 2005.

Water Supply

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the recommendations of the Burncrooks Inquiry in respect of maintaining detailed information on the water supply network were implemented in full.

Ross Finnie: Implementation of the recommendations contained in the report on the Burncrooks incident is a matter for Scottish Water. However, the Drinking Water Quality Regulator advises that Scottish Water does not yet have full detailed information on its water supply network. The network comprises of nearly 50,000 km of water mains across Scotland. The collection and cleansing of data is an on-going task. The problem that arose in Glasgow in August, regarding the source of the water being supplied to part of Clydebank, regrettably occurred as a result of nomenclature and misidentification of a valve on the Geographic Information System.

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Holyrood Project

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): To ask the Presiding Officer whether the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) will give a detailed breakdown of the £14.2 million landscaping costs in relation to the Holyrood Project; what cost savings the SPCB has considered, detailing which savings have been incorporated and, where cost savings were considered but not made, what the reasons were, and what cost savings the SPCB is currently considering or plans to consider in the future.

Sir David Steel: The information of the landscaping costs are as follows:

  


Category 
  

£ million 
  



Construction 
  

7.7 
  



Fees 
  

1.9 
  



Land acquisition 
  

0.3 
  



Risk and Inflation 
  

1.8 
  



Muster Room 
  

0.5 
  



VAT 
  

2.0 
  



Total 
  

14.2 
  



  The SPCB and the Holyrood Project Group consider opportunities for cost savings on an on-going basis across the whole project, including savings for the landscaping development. Decisions to implement cost saving measures are taken whenever the quality of the finished product and the integrity of the architects' design concepts will not be materially compromised and are balanced against the impact on other works packages and any programme implications. The cost savings information is not collated in the detailed manner requested, and no separate exercise is being undertaken.

Parliamentary Visits

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): To ask the Presiding Officer,  further to his answer to question S1W-29304 on 30 September 2002, how many visitors there were to the public gallery in the chamber on each (a) Wednesday and (b) Thursday that the Parliament has met since 1 September 1999 and what the average number of visitors was on these days during the periods (i) 1 September to 31 December 1999, (ii) 1 January to 31 December 2000, (iii) 1 January to 31 December 2001 and (iv) 1 January to 30 June 2002.

Sir David Steel: The information requested broken down by years is given below. Since access and egress of visitors is a continuous process it is not possible to identify total numbers in the gallery at any one time.

  


1 September to 31 December 1999 
  

1 January to 31 December 2000 
  



Number of Visitors 
  

Number of Visitors 
  



Wednesday 
  

Thursday 
  

Wednesday 
  

Thursday 
  



8/9 
  

233 
  

9/9 
  

387 
  

1/1 – 7/1 - Recess 
  



15/9 
  

242 
  

16/9 
  

534 
  

12/1 
  

133 
  

13/1 
  

327 
  



22/9 
  

319 
  

23/9 
  

397 
  

19/1 
  

143 
  

20/1 
  

483 
  



29/9 
  

248 
  

30/9 
  

604 
  

26/1 
  

147 
  

27/1 
  

465 
  



6/10 
  

287 
  

7/10 
  

445 
  

2/2 
  

170 
  

3/2 
  

710 
  



11/10 –22/10 - Recess 
  

9/2 
  

154 
  

10/2 
  

447 
  



27/10 
  

384 
  

28/10 
  

636 
  

16/2 
  

349 
  

17/2 
  

481 
  



3/11 
  

235 
  

4/11 
  

582 
  

23/2 
  

218 
  

24/2 
  

624 
  



10/11 
  

194 
  

11/11 
  

347 
  

1/3 
  

171 
  

2/3 
  

558 
  



17/11 
  

267 
  

18/11 
  

480 
  

8/3 
  

102 
  

9/3 
  

537 
  



25/11 
  

300 
  

26/11 
  

476 
  

15/3 
  

209 
  

16/3 
  

439 
  



1/12 
  

198 
  

2/12 
  

480 
  

22/3 
  

297 
  

23/3 
  

559 
  



8/12 
  

269 
  

9/12 
  

405 
  

29/3 
  

73 
  

30/3 
  

658 
  



15/12 
  

89 
  

16/12 
  

299 
  

5/4 
  

631 
  

6/4 
  

738 
  



20/12 -31/12 - Recess 
  

10/4 – 21/4 - Recess 
  


 
 
 
 

26/4 
  

205 
  

27/4 
  

865 
  



3/5 
  

258 
  

4/5 
  

378 
  



10/5 
  

266 
  

11/5 
  

554 
  



15/5 – 2/6 – Parliament met in 
  Glasgow 
  



7/6 
  

237 
  

8/6 
  

526 
  



14/6 
  

262 
  

15/6 
  

642 
  



21/6 
  

346 
  

22/6 
  

677 
  



28/6 
  

214 
  

29/6 
  

519 
  



5/7 
  

242 
  

6/7 
  

722 
  



10/7 – 1/9 Recess 
  



6/9 
  

243 
  

7/9 
  

245 
  



13/9 
  

151 
  

14/9 
  

660 
  



20/9 
  

174 
  

21/9 
  

358 
  



27/9 
  

143 
  

28/9 
  

379 
  



4/10 
  

284 
  

5/10 
  

482 
  



9/10 – 20/10 - Recess 
  



25/10 
  

351 
  

26/10 
  

397 
  



1/11 
  

175 
  

2/11 
  

533 
  



8/11 
  

227 
  

9/11 
  

417 
  



15/11 
  

102 
  

16/11 
  

405 
  



22/11 
  

163 
  

23/11 
  

412 
  



29/11 
  

168 
  

30/11 
  

574 
  



6/12 
  

195 
  

7/12 
  

447 
  



13/12 
  

143 
  

14/12 
  

381 
  



17/12 – 31/12 - Recess 
  



Total 
  

3,265 
  

Total 
  

6,072 
  

Total 
  

7,346 
  

Total 
  

17,599 
  



Average 
  

251 
  

Average 
  

467 
  

Average 
  

216 
  

Average 
  

517 
  



  


1 January to 31 December 2001 
  

1 January to 30 June 2002 
  



Number of Visitors 
  

Number of Visitors 
  



Wednesday 
  

Thursday 
  

Wednesday 
  

Thursday 
  



1/1 – 5/1 - Recess 
  

1/1 – 4/1 - Recess 
  



10/1 
  

91 
  

11/1 
  

318 
  

9/1 
  

141 
  

10/1 
  

324 
  



17/1 
  

142 
  

18/1 
  

436 
  

16/1 
  

117 
  

17/1 
  

369 
  



24/1 
  

108 
  

25/1 
  

524 
  

23/1 
  

200 
  

24/1 
  

403 
  



31/1 
  

201 
  

1\2 
  

474 
  

30/1 
  

123 
  

31/1 
  

416 
  



7/2 
  

140 
  

8/2 
  

322 
  

6/2 
  

226 
  

7/2 
  

330 
  



14/2 
  

262 
  

15/2 
  

442 
  

13/2 
  

616 
  

14/2 
  

429 
  



19/2 – 23/2 – Recess 
  

18/2 – 22/2 - Recess 
  



28/2 
  

100 
  

1/3 
  

471 
  

27/2 
  

330 
  

28/2 
  

616 
  



7/3 
  

186 
  

8/3 
  

431 
  

6/3 
  

182 
  

7/3 
  

525 
  



14/3 
  

404 
  

15/3 
  

886 
  

13/3 
  

357 
  

14/3 
  

628 
  



21/3 
  

168 
  

22/3 
  

530 
  

20/3 
  

401 
  

21/3 
  

621 
  



28/3 
  

130 
  

29/3 
  

501 
  

27/3 
  

283 
  

28/3 
  

501 
  



4/4 
  

152 
  

5/4 
  

499 
  

1\4 – 13/4 - Recess 
  



9/4 – 20/4 - Recess 
  

17/4 
  

204 
  

18/4 
  

514 
  



25/4 
  

241 
  

26/4 
  

387 
  

24/4 
  

314 
  

25/4 
  

592 
  



2/5 
  

158 
  

3/5 
  

433 
  

1/5 
  

269 
  

2/5 
  

454 
  



9/5 
  

131 
  

10/5 
  

586 
  

8/5 
  

197 
  

9/5 
  

608 
  



16/5 
  

205 
  

17/5 
  

412 
  

15/5 
  

277 
  

16/5 
  

740 
  



23/5 
  

150 
  

24/5 
  

526 
  

20/5 – 7/6 – Committee Work and Parliament meeting 
  in Aberdeen 
  



30/5 
  

269 
  

31/5 
  

357 
  



6/6 
  

332 
  

7/6 
  

113 
  

12/6 
  

294 
  

13/6 
  

464 
  



13/6 
  

332 
  

14/6 
  

510 
  

19/6 
  

230 
  

20/6 
  

671 
  



20/6 
  

195 
  

21/6 
  

605 
  

26/6 
  

168 
  

27/6 
  

621 
  



27/6 
  

180 
  

28/6 
  

361 
  
 
 
 
 



2/7 – 31/8 - Recess 
  



5/9 
  

182 
  

6/9 
  

340 
  



12/9 
  

166 
  

13/9 
  

542 
  



19/9 
  

426 
  

20/9 
  

604 
  



26/9 
  

291 
  

27/9 
  

570 
  



3/10 
  

359 
  

4/10 
  

682 
  



8/10 – 19/10 - Recess 
  



24/10 
  

338 
  

25/10 
  

707 
  



31/10 
  

181 
  

1/11 
  

746 
  



7/11 
  

239 
  

8/11 
  

603 
  



14/11 
  

256 
  

15/11 
  

504 
  



21/11 
  

253 
  

22/11 
  

608 
  



28/11 
  

181 
  

29/11 
  

821 
  



5/12 
  

207 
  

6/12 
  

681 
  



12/12 
  

201 
  

13/12 
  

392 
  



19/12 
  

118 
  

20/12 
  

226 
  



24/12 – 31/12 - Recess 
  



Total 
  

7,676 
  

Total 
  

18,150 
  

Total 
  

4,929 
  

Total 
  

9,826 
  



Average 
  

213 
  

Average 
  

504 
  

Average 
  

259 
  

Average 
  

517 
  



  The member may wish to know that the SPCB has already increased the planned seating capacity for press and public in the Holyrood Chamber from 200 to 267 seats, and that there will be further 275 public spaces in committee rooms as against only 53 in our temporary accommodation.

  Following are statistics on parliamentary questions and answers for the period from 16/9/2002 to 11/10/2002

  


 


Scottish Executive 
  

Presiding Officer 
  

Total 
  



Total questions asked 
  

1,254 
  

30 
  

1,284 
  



Total questions answered 
  

1,247 
  

15 
  

1,262 
  



  


Total non-recess questions answered (breakdown) 
  



Answered within: 
  

Scottish Executive 
  

Presiding Officer 
  



0-14 days 
  

826 
  

9 
  



2-4 weeks 
  

113 
  

4 
  



4-6 weeks 
  

34 
  

0 
  



6-8 weeks 
  

0 
  

0 
  



8 weeks and over 
  

1 
  

0 
  



Total answered 
  

974 
  

13 
  



  


Total recess questions answered (breakdown) 
  



Answered within: 
  

Scottish Executive 
  

Presiding Officer 
  



0-28 days 
  

190 
  

2 
  



4-6 weeks 
  

44 
  

0 
  



6-8 weeks 
  

24 
  

0 
  



8 weeks and over 
  

15 
  

0 
  



Total answered 
  

273 
  

2